' This is a petition filed against the judgment and order of Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 16th October, 1980 dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the petitioner/appellant had not filed a certified copy of the impugned order appealed against before it,
2. The petitioner admits being a tenant of respondent No. 1 of a flat. On 8th July, 1978 an application was filed for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent. The defence of the petitioner before the Controller was that the rental had been paid but the landlord had refused to issue receipts and that subsequently he had also refused to accept the money orders sent to him on account of rent by the petitioner, whereupon, the petitioner had started depositing the amount in Court.
3. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 19th July, 1979 found the petitioner to be a defaulter in the payment of rent from 23rd March, 1978 to the date of institution of the petition and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge. Along with the appeal, it is contended that the petitioner filed an application for dispensing with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order as A it had not been made available till then. On 16th November. 1980 the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that a certified copy of the judgment of the Rent Controller had not been filed. He placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Shafiq (1).
4. Respondent has not appeared despite service. This petition is, therefore, being determined ex parte.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Muhammad Shafiq's case is not attracted as it related to an appeal filed under section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 before the High Court and that it was in this context that it had been observed that a second appeal was not competent without a certified copy of the impugned order. Learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Daud v. Abbas Ali (2) to contend that section 15(1) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance under which the appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge deals only with the form of appeal and the form of presentation and does not require the memorandum to be accompanied by any other' document. It was held in this case that the procedure of Order XLI was not applicable to appeals before the District Court and that on the other hand it required the lower appellate Court to call for the record and for this reason did not contain any provision requiring the appellant to file a copy of the impugned order. It is obvious, therefore, that the law does not require the filing of a copy of the order of the Rent Controller along with the memorandum of appeal presented before the District Judge under section 15 of the Ordinance. The reliance by the learned Additional District Judge on the judgment in the case of Shafiq was misplaced.
' In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 16th November, 1980 is declared to be without lawful authority and is set aside and the learned Additional District Judge respondent No, 2 is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law.
' In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1979 CLC 68 (2) PLD 1975 Lah. 699 {{FOOT NOTE}}